Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:36:05 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <vqjne6$l8rk$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me>
 <4426787ad065bfd0939e10b937f3b8b2798d0578@i2pn2.org>
 <vq8mam$29b9l$5@dont-email.me>
 <920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org>
 <vq9lvn$2ei4j$3@dont-email.me>
 <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org>
 <vqadoh$2ivg7$2@dont-email.me> <vqae74$2ivcn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqag6q$2jief$1@dont-email.me> <vqagb7$2ivcn$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqakhi$2jief$3@dont-email.me> <vqalvr$2ivcn$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqaq2s$2lgq7$2@dont-email.me> <vqasm4$2lue4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqb43k$2mueq$1@dont-email.me> <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me> <vqbp05$2td95$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvlu$34c3r$3@dont-email.me> <vqecht$3epcf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf2lh$3j68u$5@dont-email.me> <vqf6mm$3j47v$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqg7ng$3qol2$3@dont-email.me> <vqh07g$26ac$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqhio1$5r7r$1@dont-email.me> <vqhm1s$6fo8$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqih45$bcso$1@dont-email.me> <vqii32$bcd0$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqijht$bcso$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 10:36:06 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fe0f48013a0a36293531e83ac0dcbef";
	logging-data="697204"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18gD+1gULp1hLej4M92BsgR"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:p/TdqyhqIEeNobMhhUIJLX3LreM=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vqijht$bcso$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3697

Op 09.mrt.2025 om 00:23 schreef olcott:
> On 3/8/2025 4:58 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/8/2025 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/8/2025 9:00 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a
>>>>> simulating termination analyzer specifying infinite
>>>>> recursion or recursive emulation cannot possibly
>>>>> reach their own final state and terminate normally.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a termination 
>>>> analyzer, simulating or otherwise, are specified by the 
>>>> specification that is the halting function:
>>>>
>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
>>>>
>>>> And HHH(DD)==0 fails to meet the above specification
>>>
>>> *THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY THUS IMPOSSIBLY FALSE*
>>> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and 
>>> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach
>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>>>
>>> It is ridiculously stupid to believe that HHH must
>>> report on behavior other than the above behavior.
>>>
>>
>> It must if it is to be classified as a halt decider or termination 
>> analyzer as per the definition.
> 
> In other words you believe that HHH should just ignore the
> fact that DD makes a call that prevents DD from ever reaching
> its own final state? *THAT IS FREAKING MORONIC*
> 
Indeed. It is also stupid to try to draw a square circle.
Why are you trying to create something that has been proven to be 
non-existent?